The Recent Hamlet Film

[shaxper]

I think Ethan Hawke played Hamlet(?).  I haven't had the chance to see it.  Has anyone else?  What did you think of it?

[Desdemona]

What a coincidence! I've just seen it today! And yes, Ethan Hawke plays Hamlet.
I was a little disappointed because I had expected a very up to date version, that is in modern English. They used the original text, which I like very much of course, but I don't think it worked for this movie. My guess is they tried to create a 'Baz-Luhrman's-Romeo-and-Juliet' kind of version of Hamlet, but like I said, I didn't really like it:
- Marcellus has become Marcella; not good, I'm sure Shakespeare had a good reason to have only 2 women in the story.
- they messed with the order of the scenes, why, I don't know...
- and some parts were left out, which is fine with me, but if you don't know the play, I think you can't always follow the storyline
- Ophelia's part (played by Julia Stiles) is reduced to almost nothing, while she is so important in the play
- Elsinor is a hotel and 'Denmark' a company name and that just doesn't fit in the story if you use the original text
Well, I'm sure there are some other things that bothered me, but that doesn't mean I didn't like the movie AT ALL. Why I liked it? Ethan Hawke's in it!   And Horatio's also cute. And it's a great story of course...

[shaxper]

I think I would like Ethan Hawke as Hamlet, but the film you described sounds horrible!  I was very torn on Baz Luhrman's R&J, because I was intrigued by how well it worked in some places, and really annoyed with how much it didn't work (or how unnecessary some of his changes were) at others.  I still don't know how I feel about it.  I should post a topic on it  

I don't blame them for not using the complete text.  Branagh's version is the only film version that ever did; and I think it hampered his ability to interpret and play with it.  In some ways, Hamlet is very much an incomplete text.  Switching the order of the scenes seems unnecessary though.  If your interpretation doesn't work with the scenes in the right order, it probably wasn't meant to be.

I think I'll have to see it, just for the heck of it, but I'll be prepared now  

Thanks for the info!

[nolablue]

See it see it see it. Do not wait.

For all its faults, this film does one thing that few other interpretations of Hamlet have done--bring out the fact that Hamlet was an idealistic, poetic, college kid. Ethan Hawke is young, and goes around in a striped stocking cap talking to himself in a Blockbuster, and speaks his soliloquies into a hand held digital video camera. He's confused and has lurking rebelliousness. I found it refreshing.

[Juliet]

It wasn't my favorite adaptation, but I thought they did some interesting things. It's definitely worth seeing. *Notice* Movie spoilers are coming up. If you haven't seen it don't want to know pivotal details of the movie, don't read further...

I actually really liked what they did with Ophelia. Her fantasies about water were brilliant, and having her actually rigged with listening equipment that Hamlet discovers in their pivotal scene was a nice modern twist. There are nice subtleties too. "To Be or Not to Be," is in Blockbuster Video, and if you pay attention as Hamlet is walking down the aisles, you'll see he's in the "Action" section with little signs reading "Action," on either side of him all the way down the aisle. Quite witty. I really liked Gertrude, as well; she did an excellent job, and when she drank the poison, she was fully aware what it was, and did it in her own desperate attempt to test/punish Claudio.

The best thing about this film, of course, is its very premise. Hamlet in the modern age is exactly as Ethan Hawke was: moodly, oddly dressed, artsy, obsessed with film. It's a great translation of the character.

It's not perfect, but see it. It's worthwhile.

~Juliet~